Terminology poll: Mafia or wolf?

To fill in some time until the next game starts.

Here's why "mafia" is objectively the better name for the antagonistic faction in these games: it makes more sense. Werewolves are, by nature, regular humans who turn into mindless, bloodthirsty beasts upon the fulfillment of certain conditions. Unless they're psychos like that one guy in Harry Potter, there is no planning, no decisive stratagems, no higher level of thinking. They do not discuss victims. They do not try to think of strategies to stay one step ahead of town investigators when doing their killings. They do not try to fabricate believable alibis. Night falls, they morph, and then they hunt. Werewolves are dominated by primitive instincts and are prisoners of their own bestial natures.

Does this sound like the villains in Mafia to you?

Now, take the alternative. "Mafia". Unlike werewolves, mafiosi are entirely human. They have set goals and plan and discuss with each other how best to accomplish these goals. At night, they position themselves to strike their victims and remove them from the game. There is no mess, no malice, simply intent on getting them out of the way as part of a step towards a larger success. They remain in control of themselves at all times. Furthermore, a mafioso's only goal is to kill their victim, whilst werewolves sometimes want to make other werewolves - an ability and a goal that puts wolves more in alignment with the "cult" faction of these games.

Clearly "mafia" is the superior name for this villainous faction, and I hope you see it my way, although I suppose in the name of fair play I will allow arguments towards the alternative. However, one argument that I will not accept is the foolish "well 'wolf/wolves' is shorter to type than 'mafia/mafiosi' ". First of all, this is why the word "scum" and its variants were invented, which circumvents this problem nicely. Secondly, there seems to be a correlation with people pairing "wolf" with "villager", which completely falls apart considering the most common "good side" pair with "mafia" is the much more elegant "town". You can't simply sing the praises of wolves using this argument and then drop the horribly-mangled "villagery" while keeping a straight face.

I eagerly await your thanks for allowing me to convert you on this most important of issues.

Werewolves transform when dead, and are thus easily identified. How can you tell a dead mafia from a dead innocent in a way that you could not use while they were alive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dp101

Werewolves transform when dead, and are thus easily identified. How can you tell a dead mafia from a dead innocent in a way that you could not use while they were alive?

---

Well see, this is the problem inherent with games that have immediate reveals upon death, but this is an argument we'll save for another day. :laugh4:

Mafia doesn't really have a good singular use so I use wolf/scumbag

Werewolves is long to type (suck it) so I call the faction mafia/scum

town doesn't have a good adjective form like villagery ("towny" seems wrong) or singular form (same issue for "townie")

but I almost always use town over village (shorter)

my system is logical and I reject your attempt to strong-arm me into your preferred nomenclature

also lol at using any argument for mafia games that revolves around "realism" :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dp101

Werewolves transform when dead, and are thus easily identified. How can you tell a dead mafia from a dead innocent in a way that you could not use while they were alive?

---

in b4 this is ignored so gh can keep pushing his wolfy A G E N D A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imdone

in b4 this is ignored so gh can keep pushing his wolfy A G E N D A

---

Luckily it wasn't so GH is not a wolf.

Yay, down with that vile "w/w" and "v/v" stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dp101

Werewolves transform when dead, and are thus easily identified. How can you tell a dead mafia from a dead innocent in a way that you could not use while they were alive?

---

CSI and public records bureaucrats. Or, if CSI isn't available, check their wallets. It works, except for the times people don't carry wallets with IDs.

For a more philosophical approach:

Quote:

---

The Game is the part of the whole that reenacts the whole as the whole. It therefore recognizes nothing outside itself, as we recognize nothing outside what we recognize.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Yay, down with that vile "w/w" and "v/v" stuff.



CSI and public records bureaucrats. Or, if CSI isn't available, check their wallets. It works, except for the times people don't carry wallets with IDs.

For a more philosophical approach:

---

But that reasoning requires cops to be in the game, and/or jailkeepers or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dp101

But that reasoning requires cops to be in the game, and/or jailkeepers or something.

---

Or the host.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Or the host.

---

But thematically the host rarely exists as an entity to actually examine bodies, in most writeups I see it is the townspeople who discover the identities of the dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dp101

But thematically the host rarely exists as an entity to actually examine bodies, in most writeups I see it is the townspeople who discover the identities of the dead.

---

But who narrates the townspeople doing so, and thus cosmologically ensures that the event happens?

CHECKMATE

I reject your argument on the grounds that I disagree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dp101

But thematically the host rarely exists as an entity to actually examine bodies, in most writeups I see it is the townspeople who discover the identities of the dead.

---

There are always more townspeople than players. It's just an abstraction. Call it "the gods", "the authorities", some unspecified person conducting an investigation on the dead, intrinsic components of the dead body...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

But who narrates the townspeople doing so, and thus cosmologically ensures that the event happens?

CHECKMATE

---

They narrate that we discover the bodies and the identity, that does not mean they made us discover the identities. Well, this is assuming we have free will of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

There are always more townspeople than players. It's just an abstraction. Call it "the gods", "the authorities", some unspecified person conducting an investigation on the dead, intrinsic components of the dead body...

---

But which intrinsic components? Do mafia have a badge of evil tattooed on their hearts or something?

Therefore, by supporting "mafia" over "wolf" you consequently must also believe in a deterministic universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dp101

But which intrinsic components? Do mafia have a badge of evil tattooed on their hearts or something?

---

Would that make cops peeping toms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imdone

Therefore, by supporting "mafia" over "wolf" you consequently must also believe in a deterministic universe.

---

Why? The definition of mafia vs wolf is up to the host, which is not deterministic at all. Just because something is correct doesn't mean it has to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dp101

Well, this is assuming we have free will of course.

---

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dp101

They narrate that we discover the bodies and the identity, that does not mean they made us discover the identities. Well, this is assuming we have free will of course.

---

They can tell us that identities have been discovered and presented to us by some source outside the immediate player group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dp101

But which intrinsic components? Do mafia have a badge of evil tattooed on their hearts or something?

---

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the host and the game.

For example, in Pizza's game, the scum - eventually just Zack - represented "terrorists" attacking the United States. The town, or the players at large, represented the electorate and the leadership of the United States. You take for granted that this flavor relates to some mechanical justification, since of course Zack running around killing one or two people per "night" - which may in fact be a year, or other long period - is not going to bring down the government of the United States.

The Game is the part of the whole that reenacts the whole as the whole. It therefore recognizes nothing outside itself, as we recognize nothing outside what we recognize.

Welp you got me there. I'm too invested in this to change my mind though, so my vote stays where it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

They can tell us that identities have been discovered and presented to us by some source outside the immediate player group.



Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the host and the game.

For example, in Pizza's game, the scum - eventually just Zack - represented "terrorists" attacking the United States. The town, or the players at large, represented the electorate and the leadership of the United States. You take for granted that this flavor relates to some mechanical justification, since of course Zack running around killing one or two people per "night" - which may in fact be a year, or other long period - is not going to bring down the government of the United States.

The Game is the part of the whole that reenacts the whole as the whole. It therefore recognizes nothing outside itself, as we recognize nothing outside what we recognize.

---

But if you're bending over backwards to justify the flavor in this way, you're unknowingly revealing the flaw in the original argument that "mafia > wolf because flavor".

It's already been established that the game host is god of that particular universe - after all, this is where the term Wrath of God originates.

Since this is the case, and since the host is always aware of the rules, roles, and actions taking place, let us further assume that the host is not merely a god but also an omnipotent one.

Taking the above for granted, since the host is also the narrator, it can be logically reasoned that the host, in the course of his/her narrations, is also the one who is driving the action in the first place - i.e. the host is actually doing the reveals upon death and not the remaining townies. Because of all this, it can be reasonably concluded that the omnipotent host/god is making the lynched person's alignment known to the general public and thus Dp101's "what about transformation upon death" argument, while in the right place, is invalid due to divine intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

It's already been established that the game host is god of that particular universe - after all, this is where the term Wrath of God originates.

Since this is the case, and since the host is always aware of the rules, roles, and actions taking place, let us further assume that the host is not merely a god but also an omnipotent one.

Taking the above for granted, since the host is also the narrator, it can be logically reasoned that the host, in the course of his/her narrations, is also the one who is driving the action in the first place - i.e. the host is actually doing the reveals upon death and not the remaining townies. Because of all this, it can be reasonably concluded that the omnipotent host/god is making the lynched person's alignment known to the general public and thus Dp101's "what about transformation upon death" argument, while in the right place, is invalid due to divine intervention.

---

So are you arguing that every action by an individual is just them acting as part of the will of the god of the game world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

It's already been established that the game host is god of that particular universe - after all, this is where the term Wrath of God originates.

Since this is the case, and since the host is always aware of the rules, roles, and actions taking place, let us further assume that the host is not merely a god but also an omnipotent one.

Taking the above for granted, since the host is also the narrator, it can be logically reasoned that the host, in the course of his/her narrations, is also the one who is driving the action in the first place - i.e. the host is actually doing the reveals upon death and not the remaining townies. Because of all this, it can be reasonably concluded that the omnipotent host/god is making the lynched person's alignment known to the general public and thus Dp101's "what about transformation upon death" argument, while in the right place, is invalid due to divine intervention.

---

But that just raises the problem of evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imdone

But if you're bending over backwards to justify the flavor in this way, you're unknowingly revealing the flaw in the original argument that "mafia > wolf because flavor".

---

No, this is in response to DP's comment that wolves can be seen as wolves at a glance, but one can't see why a mafioso is a mafioso just by looking at him. In terms of the reveal.

This is the same issue that enters into why we can't just recognize each other, for example in games where there are literal monsters and writeups can be like, "Suddenly the townspeople noticed Player X had fangs and red glowing eyes and they lynched him."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dp101

So are you arguing that every action by an individual is just them acting as part of the will of the god of the game world?

---

Every game of Mafia is internally self-sufficient by the host's direction. This is why logical absurdities appear in terms of "realism", because the game is only realistic unto itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

No, this is in response to DP's comment that wolves can be seen as wolves at a glance, but one can't see why a mafioso is a mafioso just by looking at him. In terms of the reveal.

This is the same issue that enters into why we can't just recognize each other, for example in games where there are literal monsters and writeups can be like, "Suddenly the townspeople noticed Player X had fangs and red glowing eyes and they lynched him."

---

But what you're arguing here is that the flavor doesn't really matter, because it's just a game and all made up anyways. But the original argument is that "mafia" is better because it makes more sense with flavor and realism.

Which is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imdone

But what you're arguing here is that the flavor doesn't really matter, because it's just a game and all made up anyways. But the original argument is that "mafia" is better because it makes more sense with flavor and realism.

Which is it?

---

The flavor and the realism (of a given game) aren't fixed (across all games).

So, ultimately, people use various terms and may even mix and match as you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The flavor and the realism (of a given game) aren't fixed (across all games).

So, ultimately, people use various terms and may even mix and match as you do.

---

Are you not arguing for the mafia team/agenda?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imdone

Are you not arguing for the mafia team/agenda?

---

The thing to recognize is that the terms "wolf" and "mafia" have most of their meaning outside the game, Mafia, and frequently outside the flavor of any given game. So these terms are used as rote by individual history, and not necessarily in relation to any particular characteristics of "wolves" or "mafia" either in general or in specific relation to game archetypes.

It comes down to taste and familiarity over your gaming career, such that the persons of highest quality speak one way and the churls another. :grin:

For those who have argued that "wolf" and all of its variants are more flexible in their usage than "mafia" - especially when it comes to the singular and plurals - I present the following:

Maf/mafs.

Maf for the singular, mafs for the plural. Even though "mafioso" and "mafiosi" are perfectly fine, this will circumvent the problem of length quite nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

For those who have argued that "wolf" and all of its variants are more flexible in their usage than "mafia" - especially when it comes to the singular and plurals - I present the following:

Maf/mafs.

Maf for the singular, mafs for the plural. Even though "mafioso" and "mafiosi" are perfectly fine, this will circumvent the problem of length quite nicely.

---

ehhh

mofos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

For those who have argued that "wolf" and all of its variants are more flexible in their usage than "mafia" - especially when it comes to the singular and plurals - I present the following:

Maf/mafs.

Maf for the singular, mafs for the plural. Even though "mafioso" and "mafiosi" are perfectly fine, this will circumvent the problem of length quite nicely.

---

:rtwno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

For those who have argued that "wolf" and all of its variants are more flexible in their usage than "mafia" - especially when it comes to the singular and plurals - I present the following:

Maf/mafs.

Maf for the singular, mafs for the plural. Even though "mafioso" and "mafiosi" are perfectly fine, this will circumvent the problem of length quite nicely.

---

Horrifically informal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

To fill in some time until the next game starts.

---

Someone could host a quick game, say, one related to Caribbean buccaneers or to stones, papyri and cutting instruments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

Here's why "mafia" is objectively the better name for the antagonistic faction in these games: it makes more sense. Werewolves are, by nature, regular humans who turn into mindless, bloodthirsty beasts upon the fulfillment of certain conditions.

---

So basically all players are werewolves, regardless of whether they are mafia or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zack

Mafia doesn't really have a good singular use so I use wolf/scumbag

---

Mafia is a singular noun used to denote the organisation.
Mafioso (pl. mafiosi) is the individual member. Mafiosa/mafiose for the wimminz, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zack

I reject your argument on the grounds that I disagree with it.

---

No, I reject your argument on the grounds that I disagree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zack

But that just raises the problem of evil.

---

You dare question your gods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

For those who have argued that "wolf" and all of its variants are more flexible in their usage than "mafia" - especially when it comes to the singular and plurals - I present the following:

Maf/mafs.

Maf for the singular, mafs for the plural. Even though "mafioso" and "mafiosi" are perfectly fine, this will circumvent the problem of length quite nicely.

---

No.
Mafioso, mafiosi.
Mafiosa, mafiose.
Capisce, moderatore?

yeah, but I said "good" singular use

I use all the terms interchangeably AND I WILL NEVAH CHANGE!!!!

I used to call them mafiahats as a joke

Then one day I played tf2 hats mafia and it was legit and no longer a joke. Which of course made it an even greater joke

True story

Hey Guys! Whats happening? Who are we lynching today?
Will catch up now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zack

yeah, but I said "good" singular use

---

Ma-fio-so. ‘Camorrista’ non e lo stesso.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sooh

I use all the terms interchangeably AND I WILL NEVAH CHANGE!!!!

---

That can be fixed.

Methinks El Bartokitty does not understand the meaning of the word NEVAH!

Then I will have to keep you closer than I keep my friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Barto

Then I will have to keep you closer than I keep my friends.

---

Cosy.

Sooh, you're a good player, and I like you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Barto

Sooh, you're a good player, and I like you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever.

---

*sides with anyone*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imdone

I reject your argument on the grounds that I disagree with it.

---

I was reading this thread, and I attempted to quote this post out loud to Sooh.

But, what I said was:

"I rejecument..."

And then I stopped, because I had already :daisy:ed up the sentence so badly it was beyond saving.

R.I.P. sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sooh

*sides with anyone*

---

I know it was you, Sooh. You broke my heart. You broke my heart.